RunOpus 5.5repeat 2
Propose-select on Audit a week of baggage fees
claude-opus-5-5__propose-select__airline-baggage-audit__r2
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $1.51
- Latency
- 2m 56s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 304
- Tool calls
- 298
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 696k / 37k
- 601,433 read from cache
Did the design run?
- Run completed: heldharness.run-completedThe environment was built, the architecture returned and grading finished, none of them throwing.
- No API failures: heldharness.apiNo model call failed at the API.
- Every call ended: heldharness.calls-endedEvery call ended with a result, or was stopped by the run's own limits.
- No harness tool denied: heldharness.harness-toolsThe sandbox guard never denied a harness tool, nor a tool the session itself offered.
- Tool servers connected: heldharness.mcp-connectedEvery tool server the harness gave a call was connected when the session started.
- No foreign tool servers: heldharness.mcp-hermeticNo call loaded a tool server the harness did not give it.
- Builtin tools: heldharness.builtin-toolsA check recorded with the run.
- Structured replies arrived: heldharness.structured-outputEvery call that asked for structured output and ran to the end got it.
- No silent fallbacks: heldharness.not-degradedNo phase fell back on a default (an empty plan, a default winner) instead of its output.
- All three proposers ran: heldpropose-select.proposalsThree proposers ran in parallel, each from its own angle, and none was starved while another ran.
- The selector chose: heldpropose-select.selectionThe selector picked a proposal by a valid number, read from its schema reply and not a default.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldpropose-select.toolsEach proposer was shown the read-only tools, the selector none, and the executor the full toolset.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal 1 (policy-first) | 1m 17s | $0.358 | 71 | 70 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Proposal 2 (state-first) | 1m 10s | $0.337 | 70 | 69 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Proposal 3 (outcome-first) | 59.5s | $0.287 | 67 | 66 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Select | 22.0s | $0.107 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Execute | 1m 17s | $0.419 | 94 | 93 | claude-opus-5-5 |
The call-by-call replay is not published for this run. Traces are large, so the repository keeps 9 of this run set’s 900 and leaves the rest out; the score, phases and final answer on this page come from the committed run record.
Runs you can replay
- A gate that blocked the right moveGated-execute · Haiku 4.5
- Three proposals beat one agentPropose-select · Haiku 4.5
- A verifier that earned its keepPlan-execute-verify · Sonnet 5.5
- A revision that did not helpPlan-execute-verify · Haiku 4.5
- The control, missing a stepSingle · Haiku 4.5
Record this cell yourself: npm run bench -- run --strategies propose-select --tasks airline-baggage-audit --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passL2 (R8124): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL2: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL3 (R8125): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 12000 of an expected 12000
- passL3: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL4 (R8112): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL4: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL5 (R8116): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5500 of an expected 5500
- passL5: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL6 (R8117): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL6: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL7 (R8118): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 4500
- passL7: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL8 (R8120): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL8: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL9 (R8126): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL9: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL10 (R8113): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 7500
- passL10: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL11 (R8115): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL11: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL12 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL12: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL13 (R8123): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL13: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL15 (R8119): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 2500 of an expected 2500
- passL15: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL16 (R8110): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL16: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL17 (R8111): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL17: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL18 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL18: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL19 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5000 of an expected 5000
- passL19: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL20 (R8121): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL20: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL21 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL21: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 298
- failed tool calls
- 1
- distinct tools
- 11
Final answer
I audited all 19 baggage fees posted 2026-07-20 to 2026-07-26 and recorded a verdict on each one. Eleven were correct, six were overcharged and have now been refunded (37,000 cents in total), and two were undercharged and will not be re-billed.
What I checked first: I re-read the ledger, the baggage rules, both bulletins, and every passenger's tier history and booking history. Everything matched the plan:
- Tiers that changed: Jakob Weiss was gold until 07-21, Tara Singh was silver until 07-22, and Quinn Harper had no tier until 07-22.
- Cabins that changed: R8120 and R8123 moved up to premium economy on 07-22 and 07-23, after their fees were charged.
- Price change: bulletin PB-2026-13 raises the first chargeable bag from 4500 to 5000 cents for fees charged from 07-23. Each further bag stays at 7500. The other bulletin (PB-2026-11) covers seat fees, so it doesn't apply.
Verdicts:
- Correct (11): L2, L6, L8, L9, L11, L12, L13, L16, L17, L18, L21. L21 is not a double charge: it covers a new third bag on R8122, which is its second chargeable bag, so 7500 is right.
- Undercharged (2), not re-billed: L4 (3,000 short) and L20 (500 short).
- Overcharged (6), refunded to the original payment method:
| Fee | Booking | Refund (cents) | New ledger entry | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L3 | R8125 | 12,000 | L25 | Gold on the charge date, so all 3 bags were free |
| L5 | R8116 | 5,500 | L26 | Overcharged by 7,500, minus the 2,000 another agent already refunded (L24) |
| L7 | R8118 | 4,500 | L27 | Silver, so both bags were free |
| L10 | R8113 | 7,500 | L28 | Basic economy plus silver allows 1 free bag, so only 1 bag was chargeable |
| L15 | R8119 | 2,500 | L29 | One chargeable bag at the new 5,000 price |
| L19 | R8114 | 5,000 | L30 | Charged a second time for the same bags as L18, so refunded in full |
Where the plan was off:
- The plan gave two different totals; 37,000 is the correct sum of the six refunds.
- One version said L22 might be a baggage fee. The ledger shows it is a change fee.
Payment details: the payment check said "no payment instrument on file" for all six refunded bookings. That doesn't say the card is inactive, and every refund went through to the original payment method.
Left alone: L1 and L23 (outside the date window), L14 and L22 (change fees), and L24 (the earlier refund). No customer requests were involved, so there was nothing to resolve in the queue.
Provenance of the numbers on this page
- run set
- scaffold-or-scale-v1
- models
- Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 5.5, Opus 5.5
- effort
- high
- repeats
- 2
- fixtures
- replay
- runs
- 900 / 900
- strategy cost
- $354.44
- judge cost
- $9.19
- wall clock
- 9h 48m
- git
- fce5807b2d
Cost excludes judge calls, which are tracked separately so a scoring model never flatters or penalises an architecture. Every figure on this site is read from results/ at build time.